Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,710   Posts: 1,548,627   Online: 1173
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by domaz View Post
    If the fungus has eaten away the coating then your pictures will probably be useless. Your pictures will be sharp but the colors will look off and wrong where the coating is gone. Tread carefully.
    Bogus.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    +1

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    328
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by domaz View Post
    If the fungus has eaten away the coating then your pictures will probably be useless. Your pictures will be sharp but the colors will look off and wrong where the coating is gone. Tread carefully.
    Incorrect.

    If there was severe damage to the elements inside then maybe this is possible. It looks like there is very minimal damage to the front lens coating and this will probably not affect the final image quality to a great degree.

    I have seen lenses a lot worse that perform quite well. Certainly not useless!

    As i have recommended to the OP: Test before you buy!

    Andrew Kirkby
    Canon Australia

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    How is a 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 even close or equivalent to a 70-200 f/4.0L ? They're not even the same lens whatsoever. I don't even majority use Canon but I know a stupid comparison when I see one.
    Not a stupid comparison, since I, the OP, mentioned that lens as a possible option for my trip - the goal being a decent (or better), lightweight, inexpensive lens I could leave in the trunk of my car or otherwise beat on.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewkirkby View Post
    Incorrect.
    I have seen lenses a lot worse that perform quite well. Certainly not useless!

    As i have recommended to the OP: Test before you buy!

    Andrew Kirkby
    Canon Australia
    I tested the lens quite thoroughly under a variety of conditions before agreeing to buy it. And, IMHO, from the limited sample I've seen thus far, it's performing quite well. The lens got a good workout (with and without a 1.4x TC) at Rocky Mountain National Park over the past week - I'm glad I had a long lens along with me and that I felt comfortable leaving it in the trunk of the car at times. As an aside, there was a good program by a visiting ranger from Australia on the national parks in Australia's Alps - interesting and informative.

    I called my local canon service center and the front lens element (which seems to be just a protective "filter") will cost me $30. Depending on labor cost I'll either let them change it out or do it myself. I can find no evidence of fungus internally but just to be safe I'll let it sit on a windowsill for a while. What would be the downside to a more intensive UV exposure via an artificial UV light source?

    Dan
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails IMG_9874.JPG  

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin